Ketubot 51A

סוף סוף, כל העומד לגזוז כגזוז דמי! דצריכא לדיקלא קאמינא.

Abaye asked him: Ultimately, anything that is about to be sheared is considered sheared, and therefore these dates should already be classified as movable property, from which her sustenance cannot be collected. Rav Yosef replied: I spoke of a case when the fruit is nearly fully ripe, but is still in need of the palm tree. Since they are attached to the ground, they may be used for the daughter’s sustenance.

ההוא יתום ויתומה דאתו לקמיה דרבא. אמר להו רבא: העלו ליתום בשביל יתומה. אמרי ליה רבנן לרבא: והא מר הוא דאמר ממקרקעי ולא ממטלטלי, בין למזוני בין לכתובה ובין לפרנסה!

The Talmud relates: There were a certain minor orphan boy and orphan girl who came before Rava. Rava said to the trustees of the father’s estate: Increase the amount you give to the orphan boy, so that there should be enough for the orphan girl as well. The rabbis said to Rava: But it was the Master who said that one may collect from land but not from movable property, whether for sustenance, whether for the marriage contract, or whether for the daughters’ livelihood. In this case only movable property was available.

אמר להו: אילו רצה שפחה לשמשו, מי לא יהבינן ליה? כל שכן הכא דאיכא תרתי.

Rava said to them: If this orphan wanted a female slave to serve him, would we not give him one? The court would use his father’s property to fund this acquisition. All the more so here, where there are two factors, as she is his sister and she will serve him as well. It is therefore appropriate to act in this manner, which is to the benefit of both the boy and the girl.

תנו רבנן: אחד נכסים שיש להן אחריות, ואחד נכסים שאין להן אחריות ⁠— מוציאין למזון אשה ולבנות, דברי רבי. רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר: נכסים שיש להן אחריות ⁠— מוציאין לבנות מן הבנים, ולבנות מן הבנות, ולבנים מן הבנים.

§ A baraita states: With regard to both property that has a guarantee, i.e., real estate, and property that does not have a guarantee, i.e., movable objects, the court removes them from the orphan heirs for the sustenance of the wife and for the daughters. This is the statement of R' Yehuda HaNasi. R' Shimon ben Elazar says: With regard to property that has a guarantee, the court removes it from the possession of the sons, who are the heirs, for the sake of the sustenance of the daughters. If the deceased had only daughters, and the adult daughters have taken possession of the estate, the court takes some of the property from the adult daughters in order to give an equal share to the young daughters. And likewise, one takes some of the property from the adult sons in order to give an equal share to the younger sons.